Hip Resurfacing: Indications, Results, and Prevention of Complications

  • Harlan C. Amstutz
  • Michel J. Le Duff
  • Frederick J. Dorey
Conference paper


The purpose of the present study was to review the indications and assess the clinical results of a current metal-on-metal hip resurfacing design in a population of patients treated for secondary osteoarthritis (OA) in which 208 patients (238 hips) underwent metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing with a diagnosis of nonprimary OA. The patients were young (average age, 41.4 years), and 62% were male. The study group presented greater risk factors [Surface Arthroplasty Risk Index (SARI) score] for resurfacing than a control group of patients operated for primary OA. The average follow-up was 5.6 years. All clinical scores showed significant improvements postoperatively (P < 0.001). Kaplan-Maier survivorship at 4 years was 95%, using any revision as endpoint. In comparison with primary OA patients, the study group had slightly inferior results, explained by the difference in risk factors. However, improvements in the surgical technique suggest that these risk factors can be overcome because early failures pertained to the stage of development of the surgical technique. Specific training programs for resurfacing are needed to minimize the learning curve of surgeons newly undertaking this procedure.


Femoral Head Femoral Component Femoral Neck Fracture Slip Capital Femoral Epiphysis Poor Bone Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Grigoris P, Roberts P, Panousis K, et al (2005) The evolution of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 36(2):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amstutz HC, Grigoris P, Dorey FJ (1998) Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip. J Orthop Sci 3(3):169–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ (2006) Background of metal-on-metal resurfacing. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 220(2):85–94Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith-Petersen MN (1948) Evolution of mould arthroplasty of the hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg 30 B:59–75Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley JC (1961) Arthroplasty of the hip: a new operation. Lancet 1:1129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muller ME, Boitzy A (1968) Artificial hip joints made from PROTOSOL. Bull Assoc Study Probl Intern Fixation 1, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerard Y (1978) Hip arthroplasty by matching cups. Clin Orthop 134:25–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nishio A, Eguchi M, Kaibara N (1978) Socket and cup surface replacement of the hip. Clin Orthop 134:53–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tanaka S (1978) Surface replacement of the hip joint. Clin Orthop 134:75–79PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Trentani C, Vaccarino F (1978) The Paltrinieri-Trentani hip joint resurface arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 134:36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Amstutz HC, Graff-Radford A, Gruen TA, et al (1978) THARIES surface replacements: a review of the first 100 cases. Clin Orthop 134:87–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagner H (1978) Surface replacement arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop 134: 102–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Townley CO (1982) Hemi and total articular replacement arthroplasty of the hip with the fixed femoral cup. Orthop Clin N Am 13(4):809–894Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charnley JC (1963) Tissue reactions to polytetrafluoroethylene. Lancet 2:1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kabo JM, Gebhard JS, Loren G, et al (1993) In vivo wear of polyethylene acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg 75B(2):254–258Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beaulé PE, Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, et al (2004) Surface arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the hip: hemiresurfacing versus metal-on-metal hybrid resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 19(12):54–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beaulé PE, Schmalzried TP, Campbell P, et al (2001) Duration of symptoms and outcome of hemiresurfacing for hip osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop 385:104–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith SL, Dowson D, Goldsmith AA (2001) The effect of femoral head diameter upon lubrication and wear of metal-on-metal total hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 215(2):161–170Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rieker CB, Schon R, Konrad R, et al (2005) Influence of the clearance on in-vitro tribology of large diameter metal-on-metal articulations pertaining to resurfacing hip implants. Orthop Clin N Am 36(2):135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, et al (2005) Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg 87B(3):324–329Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, et al (2004) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 86A:28–39Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, et al (2004) Risk factors affecting early outcome of metal on metal surface arthroplasty of the hip in patients 40 years old and younger. Clin Orthop 418:87–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beaulé PE, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, et al (2004) Metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty with a cemented femoral component: a 7–10 year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 19(12):17–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW (2004) Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 86B:177–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nakamura S, Ninomiya S, Nakamura T (1989) Primary osteoarthritis of the hip joint in Japan. Clin Orthop 241:190–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoaglund FT, Yau AC, Wong WL (1973) Osteoarthritis of the hip and other joints in southern Chinese in Hong Kong. J Bone Joint Surg 55A(3):545–557Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kobayashi S, Eftekhar NS, Terayama K, et al (2001) Primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of American and Japanese cohorts followed for 10–20 years. J Arthroplasty 16(3):340–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Le Duff MJ (2001) Hybrid metal on metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Oper Tech Orthop 11(4):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Beaulé PE, Amstutz HC (2002) Surface arthroplasty of the hip revisited: current indications and surgical technique. In: Singha R (ed) Hip replacement: current trends and controversies. Dekker, New York, pp 261–297Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amstutz HC, Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, et al (2006) Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study—surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] Vol 88-A,Suppl 1 part 2, pp 234–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, et al (2006) The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3–9 year follow-up. J Arthroplasty (in press)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Laage H, Barnett JC, Brady JM, et al (1953) Horizontal lateral roentgenography of the hip in children; a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg 35A(2):387–398Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, et al (1984) Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 66A(2):228–241Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1998) SF-12: How to score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales, 3rd edn. Quality Metric, Lincoln, RIGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg 51A(4):737–755Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Amstutz HC, Campbell PA, Le Duff MJ (2004) Incidence and prevention of neck fractures after surface arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86A(9):1874–1877Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amstutz HC, Su EP, Le Duff MJ (2005) Surface arthroplasty in young patients with hip arthritis secondary to childhood disorders. Orthop Clin N Am 36(2):223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brinker M, Rosenberg A, Kull L, et al (1994) Primary total hip arthroplasty using noncemented porous-coated femoral components in patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J Arthroplasty 9(5):457–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ortiguera CJ, Pulliam IT, Cabanela ME (1999) Total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis. Matched-pair analysis of 188 hips with long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 14(1): 21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Radl R, Hungerford M, Materna W, et al (2005) Higher failure rate and stem migration of an uncemented femoral component in patients with femoral head osteonecrosis than in patients with osteoarthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 76(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lehtimaki MY, Lehto MU, Kautiainen H, et al (2001) Charnley total hip arthroplasty in ankylosing spondylitis: survivorship analysis of 76 patients followed for 8–28 years. Acta Orthop Scand 72(3):233–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lehtimaki MY, Kautiainen H, Lehto UK, et al (1999) Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in rheumatoid patients: a survival study up to 20 years. J Arthroplasty 14(6): 657–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kobayashi S, Saito N, Horiuchi H, et al (2000) Poor bone quality or hip structure as risk factors affecting survival of total-hip arthroplasty. Lancet 355(9214):1499–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, et al (2004) Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg 86B(3):185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amstutz HC, Ebramzadeh E, Sarkany A, et al (2004) Preservation of bone mineral density of the proximal femur following hemisurface arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 27(12):1266–1271Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Harty JA, Devitt B, Harty LC, et al (2005) Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry analysis of peri-prosthetic stress shielding in the Birmingham resurfacing hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(10):693–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kronick JL, Barba ML, Paprosky WG (1997) Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop 344:263–274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McLaughlin JR, Lee KR (2000) Total hip arthroplasty in young patients: 8-to 13-year results using an uncemented stem. Clin Orthop 373:153–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marchetti ME, Steinberg GG, Greene JM, et al (1996) A prospective study of proximal femur bone mass following cemented and uncemented hip arthroplasty. J Bone Miner Res 11(7):1033–1039PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McCarthy CK, Steinberg GG, Agrsen M, et al (1991) Quantifying bone loss from proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 73B(5):774–778Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kilgus DJ, Shimaoka EE, Tipton JS, et al (1993) Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurement of bone mineral density around porous-coated cementless femoral implants. Methods and preliminary results. J Bone Joint Surg 75B(2):279–287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harlan C. Amstutz
    • 1
  • Michel J. Le Duff
    • 1
  • Frederick J. Dorey
    • 2
  1. 1.Joint Replacement Institute at Orthopaedic HospitalLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Los Angeles Children’s HospitalLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations